Dataset Information

Acceptability and Feasibility of the Transfer of Face-to-Face Group Therapy to Online Group Chats in a Psychiatric Outpatient Setting During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Observational Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, several mental health care providers were obliged to shut down outpatient services, including group therapy and psychoeducational sessions. The lockdown in many countries is a serious threat to people's mental well-being, especially for individuals with severe mental illnesses. Discontinued outpatient treatments and disruption of daily routines are considered to be risk factors for destabilization of patients with mental illness.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of a group chat program to replace cancelled face-to-face group sessions in an outpatient psychiatric department.

Methods

Participants (N=33) were recruited in the outpatient department of a large university medical center in Leipzig, Germany. Former face-to-face group participants were invited to take part in a therapist-guided group-chat for 4 weeks (8 sessions) and were asked to evaluate the program via self-administered standardized questionnaires at baseline (T0, preintervention), after every chat session (T1), and posttreatment (T2, after 4-6 weeks). The chat groups were specific to the following mental disorder diagnoses and based on the same therapeutic principles and techniques as the former face-to-face groups: anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Sociodemographic measures, attitudes toward the COVID-19 pandemic, depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), quality of life (abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment), treatment credibility/expectancy (Credibility Expectancy Questionnaire), and participants' satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 [ZUF-8]) were measured.

Results

Participants joined an average of 5 out of 8 offered chat sessions. Participation rates in the respective groups were highest in the ADHD group (8.6/11, 78%) and lowest in the anxiety group (3.7/9, 41%). The overall preintervention level of depressive symptoms was moderate and showed a slight, nonsignificant improvement at posttreatment (T0: mean 10.7, SD 5.5; T2: mean 10.2, SD 5.5). A similar result was observed regarding quality of life (T0: median 41.7-68.8; T2: median 50-70.3). Treatment credibility and expectancy scores were medium-high (T0: mean_credibility 18.1, SD 3.8; mean_expectancy 11.2, SD 5.1; T2: mean_credibility 17.1, SD 4.8; mean_expectancy 10.3, SD 5.8). Further, significant correlations were detected between posttreatment expectancy score and posttreatment PHQ-9 score (r=-0.41, P=.02), posttreatment physical quality of life (r=0.54, P=.001), and posttreatment psychological quality of life (r=0.53, P=.002). Overall, participants' satisfaction with the program was very high, both after chat sessions and at posttreatment (ZUF-8: mean score 20.6, SD 1.0). Of all participants, a majority (27/31, 87%) rated the program as excellent/good and indicated they would recommend the group chat program to a friend in need of similar help (23/31, 74%).

Conclusions

A therapist-guided group chat program to substitute outpatient group setting treatment during the COVID-19 lockdown was shown to be feasible, usable, and highly acceptable for participants. Web-based programs such as this one provide an easy-to-implement tool to successfully stabilize participants during a difficult time, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00021527; https://tinyurl.com/3btyxc2r.

SUBMITTER: Scholl J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315157 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of webGP as piloted by six general practices.Mixed-methods evaluation, including data extraction from practice databases, general practitioner (GP) completion of case reports, patient questionnaires and staff interviews.General practices in NHS Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group's area approximately 6?months after implementing webGP (February-July 2016).Six practices provided consultations data; 20 GPs completed case reports (regarding 61 e-consults); 81 patients completed questionnaires; 5 GPs and 5 administrators were interviewed.Attitudes and experiences of practice staff and patients regarding webGP.WebGP uptake during the evaluation was small, showing no discernible impact on practice workload. The completeness of cross-sectional data on consultation workload varied between practices.GPs judged 41/61 (72%) of webGP requests to require a face-to-face or telephone consultation. Introducing webGP appeared to be associated with shifts in responsibility and workload between practice staff and between practices and patients.81/231 patients completed a postal survey (35.1% response rate). E-Consulters were somewhat younger and more likely to be employed than face-to-face respondents. WebGP appeared broadly acceptable to patients regarding timeliness and quality/experience of care provided. Similar problems were presented by all respondents. Both groups appeared equally familiar with other practice online services; e-consulters were somewhat more likely to have used them.From semistructured staff interviews, it appeared that, while largely acceptable within practice, introducing e-consults had potential for adverse interactions with pre-existing practice systems.There is potential to assess the impact of new systems on consultation patterns by extracting routine data from practice databases. Staff and patients noticed subtle changes to responsibilities associated with online options. Greater uptake requires good communication between practice and patients, and organisation of systems to avoid conflicts and misuse. Further research is required to evaluate the full potential of webGP in managing practice workload.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is recognised as an essential part of health research. In addition to providing an opportunity for patients to shape health research and acquire research skills, in the inpatient mental health setting, PPIE may have additional value in providing meaningful activity and enhancing recovery, as defined using connectedness, hope, identity, meaning and empowerment (CHIME) principles. However, there have been challenges in applying PPIE principles in secure mental health inpatient settings. An eight -session PPIE programme ("Discovery Group") was designed to support patient-led research in a secure mental health hospital. This feasibility study aims to evaluate the acceptability of the programme from the perspective of patients and identify potential outcomes.MethodsA retrospective single-arm post-programme evaluation of Discovery Group was undertaken. Participants attended an evaluation workshop where they were interviewed individually to complete an acceptability questionnaire designed using the domains of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Participants also completed an outcomes questionnaire, which included CHIME-based recovery items, and were invited to share their ideas for programme improvement on posters. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Direct content analysis was applied to qualitative data.ResultsIn our sample, eight participants attended at least one session of the discovery group with one patient attending all sessions. Most of the participants felt positive about taking part in the group and expressed interest in joining another group in future. All participants experienced some burden from the effort required during group sessions, but a low level of opportunity cost in terms of the extent to which they perceived they had to forfeit benefits to participate in the programme.. Some described the group as effective in helping them learn about research. Of the five CHIME recovery domains, only connectedness was reported as a benefit of the group. The participants valued the opportunity to use their time well and demonstrate that they were undertaking purposeful activity as part of their rehabilitation and recovery.ConclusionsDiscovery Group is a tool to overcome barriers to effective PPIE in research in a secure inpatient mental health setting. The programme has a high level of acceptability among participants and offered several potential outcomes which require testing through further study.

Project description:BackgroundSuicidal behaviour is common in acute psychiatric wards resulting in distress, and burden for patients, carers and society. Although psychological therapies for suicidal behaviour are effective in out-patient settings, there is little research on their effectiveness for in-patients who are suicidal.AimsOur primary objective was to determine whether cognitive-behavioural suicide prevention therapy (CBSP) was feasible and acceptable, compared with treatment as usual (TAU) for in-patients who are suicidal. Secondary aims were to assess the impact of CBSP on suicidal thinking, behaviours, functioning, quality of life, service use, cost-effectiveness and psychological factors associated with suicide.MethodA single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial comparing TAU to TAU plus CBSP in in-patients in acute psychiatric wards who are suicidal (the Inpatient Suicide Intervention and Therapy Evaluation (INSITE) trial, trial registration: ISRCTN17890126). The intervention consisted of TAU plus up to 20 CBSP sessions, over 6 months continuing in the community following discharge. Participants were assessed at baseline and at 6 weeks and 6 months post-baseline.ResultsA total of 51 individuals were randomised (27 to TAU, 24 to TAU plus CBSP) of whom 37 were followed up at 6 months (19 in TAU, 18 in TAU plus CBSP). Engagement, attendance, safety and user feedback indicated that the addition of CBSP to TAU for in-patients who are acutely suicidal was feasible and acceptable while on in-patient wards and following discharge. Economic analysis suggests the intervention could be cost-effective.DiscussionPsychological therapy can be delivered safely to patients who are suicidal although modifications are required for this setting. Findings indicate a larger, definitive trial should be conducted.Declaration of interestThe trial was hosted by Greater Manchester Mental health NHS Trust (formerly, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care NHS Trust). The authors are affiliated to the University of Manchester, Greater Manchester Mental Health Foundation Trust, Lancashire Care NHS Foundation trust and the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre. Y.A. is a trustee for a North-West England branch of the charity Mind.

Project description:BackgroundAdolescence is an important life stage for the development of healthy behaviors, which have a long-lasting impact on health across the lifespan. Sleep undergoes significant changes during adolescence and is linked to physical and psychiatric health; however, sleep is rarely assessed in routine health care settings. Wearable sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) devices may represent user-friendly methods for assessing sleep among adolescents, but no studies to date have examined the feasibility and acceptability of sleep EEG wearables in this age group.ObjectiveThe goal of the research was to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of sleep EEG wearable devices among adolescents aged 11 to 17 years.MethodsA total of 104 adolescents aged 11 to 17 years participated in 7 days of at-home sleep recording using a self-administered wearable sleep EEG device (Zmachine Insight+, General Sleep Corporation) as well as a wristworn actigraph. Feasibility was assessed as the number of full nights of successful recording completed by adolescents, and acceptability was measured by the wearable acceptability survey for sleep. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed separately for the sleep EEG device and wristworn actigraph.ResultsA total of 94.2% (98/104) of adolescents successfully recorded at least 1 night of data using the sleep EEG device (mean number of nights 5.42; SD 1.71; median 6, mode 7). A total of 81.6% (84/103) rated the comfort of the device as falling in the comfortable to mildly uncomfortable range while awake. A total of 40.8% (42/103) reported typical sleep while using the device, while 39.8% (41/103) indicated minimal to mild device-related sleep disturbances. A minority (32/104, 30.8%) indicated changes in their sleep position due to device use, and very few (11/103, 10.7%) expressed dissatisfaction with their experience with the device. A similar pattern was observed for the wristworn actigraph device.ConclusionsWearable sleep EEG appears to represent a feasible, acceptable method for sleep assessment among adolescents and may have utility for assessing and treating sleep disturbances at a population level. Future studies with adolescents should evaluate strategies for further improving usability of such devices, assess relationships between sleep EEG-derived metrics and health outcomes, and investigate methods for incorporating data from these devices into emerging digital interventions and applications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03843762; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03843762.

Project description:BackgroundPreoperative assessment of mental health rarely occurs within routine surgery. Any screening tool selected to form part of this process must be deemed practical, acceptable and valid by clinicians and consumers alike. This study aims to assess the acceptability and face validity of two existing mental health screening tools to select one for further development and use in the routine surgical setting.MethodsA survey of clinicians and consumers was conducted from October 2020 to March 2021 at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Using a Likert scale (1-5, lowest to highest rating), the clinicians evaluated four domains for acceptability and two for validity (six overall) and the consumers four domains for acceptability and one for validity (five overall) on the preoperative use of the amended Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) and the Somatic and Psychological Health Report-12 (SPHERE-12). Consensus was achieved through a rating of 4 or 5 being given by 70% or more of participants with domains able to remain unchanged. Free text responses were analysed into themes.ResultsA total of 73 participants (51 clinicians; 22 consumers) were included. The K10 received consensus scores (≥ 70%) in four out of six domains for clinicians (4/4 acceptability; 0/2 validity), and all five domains for consumers (4/4 acceptability; 1/1 validity). The SPHERE-12 received consensus scores (≥ 70%) in three domains for clinicians (3/4 acceptability; 0/2 validity), and three domains for consumers (3/4 acceptability; 0/1 validity). Six qualitative themes were described including (1) amendments to tool structure and language; (2) scale response options; (3) difficulty with somatic questions; (4) practicality and familiarity with K10; (5) challenges for specific patient cohorts and (6) timing considerations for patients.ConclusionAdequate acceptability was established for the K10. However further development is required to strengthen its validity for this specific surgical cohort and purpose. Future research to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and using the K10 in the routine surgical setting is now needed.